Recruitment of Lab Technicians challenged on grounds of missing paramedical council registration and unrecognized diploma institutes. The court held no registration condition existed at the time of advertisement, dismissed the unsuccessful candidate's petition, quashed show cause notices against AIMLTA-trained appointees.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 12
Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE
2024:CGHC:33753
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1113 of 2013
Ram Prakash Choudhary, S/o Dhanurjay Choudhary Aged About 32 Years R/o Village & Post Patsendra, Tahsil and P.S. Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Deptt, Ps Rakhi, Tah Aarang, Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner Health Services, Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Sanchanalaya, Dks Bhawan, Raipur, Ps City Kotwali, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur Division, PS City Kotwali, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Lunkaran Singh Rajput S/o Pushkar Singh Office Address Primary Health Center, Taretgaon, Bodla, Distt Kabirdham, R/opresent Address Karesara, Tah Saja, PS Saja, Distt Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Omshankar Chandrakasr, S/o Dwarika Prasad, Office Address Primary Health Center, Amlipara, Mainpur, Distt Gariyaband, R/o Vill. Jamli Kala, Post Kamroud Kala, P.S. Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund. ---- Respondents
with
WPS No. 3316 of 2013
1 - Rakhshanda Tarannum, D/o Shri Abdul Aziz, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Qr. No. 11/b, Street No. 4, Zone-III, Khursipar, Sector- 11, P.S. Khursipar, Bhilai, Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava, S/o Shri R.H. Shrivastava, Aged About 36 Years R/o Qr. No. 13, Sector - 6, P.S. Sector-6, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Smt. Manjuliya Xess W/o Shri Kiran Kumar Xess Aged About 38 Years R/o Qr. No. 132/5A Maitri Nagar, Rishali, P.S. Risali, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Jeevan Lal Sahu S/o Shri Kripa Ram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Qr. No. 16,
2 / 12
Shivpuri Jamul , P.S. Jamul, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Yuvraj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Puhup Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Indira Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, P.S. Tikara Para, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Ku. Shashi, D/o Shri R.S. Choudhari Aged About 33 Years R/o Street No. 10, Qr. No. 1/c, Zone - III, Sector- 11, Khursipar, Bhilai, P.S. Khursipar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Lunkaran Singh Rajput S/o Shri Pushkar Singh Rajput Aged About 36 Years C/o Santosh Kirana Stors Ward No. 56 Urla Naharpar, P.S. Mohan Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Prahlad Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Punnu Lal Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And Post Lakholi, Block And Police Station Arang, Dist. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
9 - Arun Kumar Mirjha, S/o Shri Itawari Ram Mirjha, Aged About 37 Years R/o Near Bemertara Naka, Ravi Das Aasram Simga Post, Tahsil And Police Station Simga, Dist. Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
10 - Smt. Sangita Sahu W/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Golden Marble Gali, Dr. Binjhawar House Lakshmi Nagar, Police Station Tikarapara, Dist. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
11 - Surash Kumar C/o Shri Laxman Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Motiya, Post Barhi, Police Station And Dist. Balod C.G., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
12 - Raghu Ram Dhruw S/o Late Shri Manshay Dhruw Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chameda Post And Tahsil Nagri, Police Station Nagari Dist. Dhamtari C.G., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
13 - Deepak Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Komal Singh Chandrakar Aged About 33 Years R/o Q.No. 20/a H.S.C.L. Colony Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai Nagar, Police Station Civic Centre, Dist. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
14 - Rohit Kumar Verma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Civil Line, Parsa Bhadera Road Baloda Bazar, Thana And Tahsil Balodabazar, Dist. Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
15 - Nema Chandrakar W/o Shri Manoj Chandrakar Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Maharana Pratap Bhawan, Shankar Nagar, Thana Mohan Nagar Dist. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
16 - Indradev Chandrakar S/o Shri Hari Narayan Chandrakar Aged About 32 Years R/o Q.No. H 12/12 Caf Line 1st Battalion Bhilai, P. S. Supela Dist. Durg C.G. , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
17 - Roshan Singh S/o Durga Singh Thakur Aged About 30 Years R/o Asha Nagar Ward No. 21 Durg, P.S. Mohan Nagar Durg, Dist Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
18 - Santosh Kumar Verma S/o Shri T.R. Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Lig 635 Sector 2 D.D.U. Nagar Raipur P.S. D.D.U. Nagar Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
19 - Bharat Lal Patel S/o Shri Vishwanath Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Konari Post Office Konari, Police Station Kasdol, Dist. Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G.,
3 / 12
District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
20 - Rupesh Kumar Pisda S/o Late Shri Pusau Ram Pisda Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Podibachra, Tahsil Khadgawa, P.S. Podibachara, Dist. Koriya C.G., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
21 - Umesh Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Khelu Ram Thakur Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And Post Nagar Panchayat Tumgaon P.S. Tumgaon, Tahsil And Dist. Mahasamund C.G., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
22 - Smt. Silviya Das W/o Late Shri C. Das Aged About 38 Years R/o Old Rajendra Nagar, Janta Quarter No. 34, Ravi Gram, P.S. Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department Of Health And Famil Welfare Zero Point, New Mantralaya P.S. Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, P.S. Civil Line Raipu C.G.
3 - Divisional Joint Director Health Services, Raipur Division T.B. Clinic Premises, Kali Badi Chowk, Raipur C.G.
4 - The Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare New Delhi. ---- Respondents
with
WPS No. 3315 of 2013
1 - Sej Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Rartik Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post Matwari, Police Station Anda, Dist. Durg , Chhattisgarh.
2 - Laxmi Kamde, S/o Shri Hari Kumar Kamde Aged About 27 Years R/o Street No. 35, Q. No.6/d Sector 10 Bhilai, Post And Police Station Sector 6, Dist. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 - Shusma Ale, D/o Late Shri T.S Ale, Aged About 28 Years R/o 31/1 Radhika Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Police Station Supela, Dist. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
4 - Ku. Alpa Goswami, D/o Shri Kuber Prakash Giri Aged About 23 Years R/o Goswami Mobile Zone Baronda Chouk Mahasamund, Tahsil And Police Station Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund C.G., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
5 - Ku. Jaimanti Xaxa D/o Shri Martin Xaxa Aged About 30 Years R/o 186/1 Maitri Kunj, Risali Bhilai Nagar Agar, Police Station Nayee, Dist. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
6 - Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Kishan Lal Aged About 36 Years R/o Suman Fancy Stors New Ganj Mandi Road Pandritarai, Police Station Mova Dist. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Roshan Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Sohan Vaishnav Aged About 36 Years R/o
4 / 12
Village Kosrangi, Post Pachera, P.S. Pachera, Tahsil And Dist. Mahasamund C.G., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Zero Point, New Mantralaya, P.S. Mandir Hasaud Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, P.S. Civil Line Raipu C.G.
3 - Divisional Joint Director Health Services Raipur Division T.B. Clinic Premises, Kali Badi Chowk, Raipur C.G.
4 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare New Delhi. ---- Respondents
| For Petitioner inWPS No. 1113 of 2013 & : |
Ms. Diksha Gauraha, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Petitioners in WPS Nos. 3315/2013 & 3316/2013 : |
Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate |
| For State : |
Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Advocate |
| For Union of India : For Intervenorin : |
Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, CGC Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate |
| WPS No. 1113 of | |
| 2013 |
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
03/09/2024
WPS No.113 of 2013
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus setting aside the appointment order dated 30.03.13 (Annexure P-8) issued by the respondent no.3 for the post of Lab Technician in favour of respondent no.4 and 5 as a last selected candidate belonging to general category.
10.2. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus setting aside the advertisement dated 4.05.12 (Annexure P-1) issued for the post of Lab Technician.
5 / 12
10.3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct a fresh selection process for the post of Lab Technician.
10.4. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for the post of Lab Technician on the basis of their qualification and experience.
10.5. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.
10.6. Cost of the petition. ”
2. Brief facts of the instant case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Lab Technician pursuant to an advertisement issued on 04.05.2012, governed under the Chhattisgarh Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 1989. According to these rules, candidates must have completed Higher Secondary (10+2) in the Science stream and have a diploma or training in medical pathology from an affiliated institute. An amendment to the advertisement was made on 30.06.2012 and 07.07.2012, whereby it was clarified that only candidates who are trained at institutes affiliated with the Chhattisgarh Government or have the necessary NOC and registration with Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council would be declared eligible. The petitioner, who was found eligible, was permitted to participate in the online exam. The petitioner in WPS No. 1113/2013 namely, Ramprakash Choudhary participated in the online exam and secured 47 marks, but he was not selected. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an objection with regard to the qualification of other candidates and the selection process but no heed was paid and the final appointment orders were issued on 30.03.2013.
3. Ms. Diksha Gouraha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner namely, Ramprakash Choudhary submitted that an advertisement was issued for 123 posts of Lab Technicians. The required essential qualification for said post was (i) the candidate must have passed the Higher Secondary examination in [Biology, Chemistry and Physics] subjects/12th examination
6 / 12
in 10+2 system, (ii) Passed 10 months/01-year training in Pathology Technician or must have a diploma in Medical Pathology & (iii) the candidate should have an active registration with Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council. She further submitted that a corrigendum was published by the department/respondent No.3 on 07.07.2012 wherein it was stated that the Technicians trained from institutions outside the State and are having live registration with the Paramedical Council of that State would be considered. She also submitted that a common online examination was conducted on 29.07.2012, and the result was declared on 19.03.2013. She further contended that the petitioner secured 47 marks out of 100 in the Other Backward Class (OBC) category. She also contended that since the petitioner was not on the merit list, therefore, he was not selected/appointed. It is argued that though the appointment order was issued in favour of the selected candidates, the Institutions from where those selected candidates acquired a Diploma or Certificate of Pathology Technician did not have affiliation from the State of Chhattisgarh and affiliation was a mandatory condition as per the corrigendum issued by respondent No. 3 dated 07.07.2012, therefore, they were not suitable for appointment to the aforesaid post. She further argued that most of the selected candidates passed Pathology Technician courses or Diploma from other states, such certificates or diplomas were not registered with the Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council as per the corrigendum dated 07.07.2012. She lastly argued that the appointment order issued in favour of the private respondents may be cancelled and the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They submitted that earlier, the Chhatisgarh Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial (Related to the Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 (for short, the
7 / 12
Rules, 1989) were framed, and there was no requirement for registration of pathology training course with the paramedical council as at that time, no such board was constituted. They further submitted that in the year 2001, after the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the Chhattisgarh Sah Chikitsa Parishad Adhiniyam, 2001 (for short, the Act, 2001) was notified and it came into force from the year 2007. They also submitted that initially, there was no requirement under the Act, 2001 with regard to the registration of the pathology laboratory technician courses with the paramedical council but later on, in the year 2013, such condition was inserted in the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-ministerial Para-Medical and Nursing (Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (for short 'the Rules, 2013'). They further contended that the private respondents had acquired their qualification prior to 2013, therefore, there was no requirement to register their certificate or diploma with the paramedical council. They also contended that when the aforesaid advertisement was issued, there was no such condition in the Act, 2001, therefore, imposing such a condition by respondent No. 3 was illegal and bad in law. They thus submitted that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record with utmost circumspection.
6. In the present case, the advertisement was issued for the 123 posts of Lab Technician according to the Rules, 1989. It is not in dispute that in the Rules 1989, there is no condition to get registered Pathology Laboratory Training Certificates or Diploma with the Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council as at that time, in the State of Chhattisgarh, no such Board or Council was constituted.
7. The Act, 2001 was notified in the year 2007 and there was no requirement for registration in the Act, 2001 also. In the Rules, 2013, for the first time, a condition was brought to get registered Certificates/Diploma of Pathology
8 / 12
Laboratory Technician courses with the Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council, but prior to 2013, the recruitment process was completed and the selected candidates were appointed.
8. Taking into consideration the fact that at the time of advertisement, there was no such condition prevalent or was enforced either by virtue of the Rules, 1989 or the Act, 2001, therefore, there is no substance in the petition filed by petitioner Ramprakash Choudhary. Accordingly, WPS No.1113 of 2013 i s hereby dismissed .
WPS Nos. 3316 of 2013 & 3315 of 2013
9. In these two petitions, the petitioners have challenged the show cause notice dated 12.09.2013 issued by respondent No.3 directing them to produce the documents pertaining to the recognition of the institutions where they have completed their Medical Pathology Diploma or Pathology Laboratory Technician course.
10. Mr. Jitendra Pali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.05.2012, the petitioners applied for the post of ‘Lab Technician’. He further submitted that according to the Rules, 1989, the essential qualification for the post of ‘Lab Technician’ was 10+2 higher secondary (biology, chemistry & physics), and the candidate should have passed 10 months/1 year training of Pathology Technician or Diploma in Medical Pathology. He also submitted that most of the petitioners have obtained/completed their training in Medical Pathology from the All India Medical Laboratory Technologists Association (AIMLTA). The Institute was registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI 1860, New Delhi bearing Registration No S/12081. He contended that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued to the AIMLTA by the Central
9 / 12
Government through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for arranging the training and education of medical laboratory technologies for the academic development of the members. He also submitted that during the Lok Sabha debate, a question was raised with regard to the recognition of the certificate issued by the AIMLTA, and the same was answered in the affirmative that the same was recognized for registration with employment exchange and for employment in the Government Hospitals.
Mr. Pali argued that the petitioners had completed their diploma course prior to the enactment of the Act, 2001 as it came into force from 06.04.2007. It is further argued that many Lab Technicians who have acquired training as a Pathology Technician or a Diploma in Medical Pathology from AIMLTA were appointed in year 2013 in the Bilaspur, Surguja and Bastar Divisions and, their services have been confirmed. He also argued that the show cause notice issued to the petitioners by respondent No. 3 is misconceived and liable to be quashed.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose and submit that on 06.08.1984, the NOC was issued by the Central Government in favour of the AIMLTA for the academic development of the members only and for recognition, the institution was required to complete the requirements. They further submitted that after coming into force of the Act, 2001, the institution was required to apply for recognition within the State of Chhattisgarh, but no steps were taken by that institution, therefore, the diploma granted by such institution is not valid within the State of Chhattisgarh. They argued that the institution from where the petitioners completed their
10 / 12
diploma of Medical Pathology, is not recognized in the State of Chhattisgarh and the petitioners have acquired the diploma registered with the International Federation of Bio-Medical Laboratory Science, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. They stated that the other petitions deserve to be dismissed.
12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record.
13. An Advertisement was issued for the various posts including 123 posts of Lab Technicians. The petitioners and other eligible aspirants participated in the recruitment process and got selected and vide order dated 30.03.2013, they were appointed. A show cause notice was issued on 12.09.2013 to the effect that the institutions from where the petitioners completed their diplomas were not recognized within the State of Chhattisgarh, and the petitioners were directed to submit relevant documents.
14. The petitioners have acquired a diploma in Medical Pathology from the AIMLTA which was an Institute recognized by the Government of India and the same is evident from the letter dated 06.08.1984 wherein, the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dept. of Health) had issued ‘NOC’ in arranging the program for the academic development of the members. Further, on 24.09.2002, the State of Chhattisgarh, Family & Health Welfare Department issued NOC in favour of the society i.e. Medical Training Organization of India, Bhilai on a condition that the concerned society would follow the instructions/guidelines issued by the Para-Medical Council of Chhattisgarh. A question was raised in the Parliament with regard to the recognition of the Para Medical diploma/certificate awarded by the
11 / 12
AIMLTA and it was answered that such institution was recognized by the Government and was valid for the purpose of employment in the Government Hospitals.
15. Since the petitioners have been working in the post of ‘Lab Technician’ since 2013, therefore also, they cannot be disturbed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar and others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 328 , wherein it was held that “the selected candidates, who have been appointed, are now in employment as Motor Vehicle Inspectors for over a decade. Now that they have worked in such posts for a long time, necessarily they would have acquired the requisite experience. Lack of experience, if any, at the time of recruitment is made good now. Therefore, the new exercise ordered by the High Court will only lead to anomalous results. Since we are disposing of these matters on equitable consideration, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that their cases for appointment should also be considered. It is not clear whether there is any vacancy for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. If that is so, unless any one or more of the selected candidates are displaced, the cases of the contesting respondents cannot be considered. We think that such an adjustment is not feasible for practical reasons. We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a long period, but the contesting respondents do not come in that class. The effect of our conclusion is that appointments made long back pursuant to a selection need not be disturbed.”
16. Taking into consideration the fact that a NOC was granted in favour of AIMLTA by the Central Government and later on, the NOC was also
12 / 12
issued by the State of Chhattisgarh vide letter dated 24.09.2002, in the opinion of this Court, the show cause notice issued by respondent No. 3 against the petitioners appears to be bad in law and therefore, the
same is liable to be and is hereby quashed.
17. As a result, WPS No. 1113 of 2013 is dismissed and WPS Nos.
3315/2013 and 3316/2013 are hereby allowed.
Sd/-
Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE
Nadim
2 issues framed by the court
Whether candidates without registration of their pathology diploma with the Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council were validly appointed as Lab Technicians under the 2012 recruitment.
Whether the show cause notice questioning recognition of diplomas issued by AIMLTA to appointed Lab Technicians was sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar and othersRelied on¶15
(2001) 3 SCC 328 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ram Prakash Choudhary
State of Chhattisgarh
Commissioner Health Services
Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur Division
Lunkaran Singh Rajput
Omshankar Chandrakasr
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
